History, doctrine, culture, books

2 Nephi 31 - On Baptism

After 12 chapters of Isaiah and Nephi's depressing comments on priestcrafts, apostasy, and the destruction of the wicked, 2 Nephi 31 practically sparkles. It reads like a rousing frontier revival sermon preached by Nephi in 550 BC, urging the faithful listener or reader to commit themselves to baptism. Yes, there are chronology problems with this setting, but let's stress the positive today. He begins in 31:5:

And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfill all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

He continues, rather oddly in the past tense, in 31:8-9:

Wherefore, after [Jesus] was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

He then covers repentance, baptism by water, and "a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost" (31:17). I assume that's literal water and figurative fire. He closes with a beautiful challenge to continued faith and striving (31:20, slight edits):

Press forward with steadfastness in Christ,
having perfect brightness of hope and love of God and all men.
Wherefore, press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ and enduring to the end,
and behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

May I ask a question here? I understand that baptism is not all that's required for salvation, but do you hold that it's a necessary element for salvation, or do you believe as the Protestants do that it's merely symbolic, a good thing to do but not really a part of the salvation process? I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism, so I've heard the reasoning from both those angles, but I've never known how Mormons see baptism.

I think the orthodox Mormon position is that baptism and confirmation (bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost) are more than merely symbolic. The performance of vicarious baptism and confirmation in LDS temples establishes, I think, the necessity of these two ordinances as strictly formal requirements.

One could argue, for example following Paul in Romans 2:25-29, that ordinances are merely symbolic. But I don't recall hearing or reading that position in any "official" LDS address or publication. That's not how LDS doctrine approaches ordinances.

A good resource to get more information on this topic is the All About Mormons site (on my sidebar under Mormonism), which has a bunch of articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Scroll down the sidebar on the left, then click Articles of Faith, then click the links under Baptism and Remission of Sins under the 4th Article of Faith, and you'll get about the best summarized statements I know of about what exactly the LDS position is on your issue.

Mormon Books 2013-14

Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of MormonismGivens and Grow's warts-and-all biography of this energetic missionary, author, and apostle whose LDS career spanned Joseph Smith's life, the emigration to Utah, and Brigham Young's early leadership of the Church in Utah. My Review